P
pnewton
Guest
Yes. I specifically saw that it had.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
pnewton
Guest
It is probable that someone somewhere will know more than the Pope on everything. However, knowledge does not equal authority. I am no so sure that have knowledge more readily available makes any difference. It is the same argument used by Protestants. Since everyone has a Bible, can’t they interpret it for themselves? Sola scriptura is more than just an issue of Scripture alone, but is a principle allowing for individual interpretation. Having both Scripture and Tradition to interpret individual makes this more problematic, not less.I am genuinely asking here, is it not possible for someone to know more than the Pope? I mean we have as much access to historical writings, interpretations and teachings. Just thinking that theoretically someone could be more well versed in the subject.
Without authority in the Church, we are no more united than the non-Catholic Christians.
Let me add, that this section of the Catechism is contains one premise in which I believe myself to be more knowledgeable than the previous three popes, and definitely more experienced. Yet I have to accept that knowledge is not everything.
Last edited:
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
I thought the Catholic position on such things was that they were; “Pro-life from conception until natural death”. It seems to me, from an outsider’s perspective, Francis is simply maintaining a logically consistent position on this. After all an execution is not what one could consider a “natural death”.
T
thistle
Guest
We are BOUND by all Church doctrine and must submit to it whether infallible or non-infallible.I disagree. If it’s not a de fide statement, I can disagree with him.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It’s possible and it has likely happened in history, given that in past centuries we had some Popes who were chosen due to political patronage rather than being the best person for the job, and some great saints who questioned Popes or took positions opposed to the Pope at the time but were later found to be the better or correct position by a later Pope.I am genuinely asking here, is it not possible for someone to know more than the Pope? I mean we have as much access to historical writings, interpretations and teachings. Just thinking that theoretically someone could be more well versed in the subject.
However, a Pope may have a lot of reasons for propagating a certain teaching, not just knowledge. He also has prudential judgment and may be better versed in the needs of the universal Church than another person, especially when the person is just some layperson.
The point about deference to authority is also important. An organization needs one leader. You might have people in the organization who know more than the leader on certain topics. For example, a corporate leader whose degrees and background are in Marketing probably doesn’t know as much about accounting as his CFO or as much about law as his legal counsel. But the leader is still the leader and he may choose to make a decision that the CFO doesn’t agree with because he thinks it’s best for other reasons, even if it’s not great from an accounting standpoint.
The number of people who go around regularly claiming to know better than the Pope who are not even on the Vigano or Cardinal Burke level, but are just some ordinary schmoe on the Internet, are truly legion. It gets tiresome.
Last edited:
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
I agree 100%
I guess my issue with the death penalty thing is that today’s Pope is saying something that contradicts historical teachings of past popes and councils and frankly teachings that come directly from the Bible. I am not interpreting anything for myself, rather relying on consistent historical teachings in f the church which now are in opposition to what the pope is saying.
I guess my issue with the death penalty thing is that today’s Pope is saying something that contradicts historical teachings of past popes and councils and frankly teachings that come directly from the Bible. I am not interpreting anything for myself, rather relying on consistent historical teachings in f the church which now are in opposition to what the pope is saying.
And none of those people have the charism that goes with the one who is the Successor of St Peter .I do think that many people know more than the Pope on most topics. .
P
pnewton
Guest
Not really. He is transcending history to speak to the present. The past is good for instruction, but it is not where we live. For example, we do not stone people, or wipe out entire villages for their evil. Yet this was once what the holiness of God required his people to do. The teaching behind those rather harsh and difficult passages illuminate the doctrine of punishment in Church history, just like the historical teaching of past popes illuminate what Pope Francis is saying.I guess my issue with the death penalty thing is that today’s Pope is saying something that contradicts historical teachings of past popes and councils and frankly teachings that come directly from the Bible.
If you note, the current change is very careful to avoid contradiction. The phrase, ““the death penalty is inadmissible” must be seen in the most literal sense of being only in the present tense. Why? The preceding paragraph explains why. It begins with the word “Today.” It is the single most important word in the teaching. It covers a sense of doctrinal development, which is allowable, as the basis for human dignity even of criminals is root as far back in Christianity as the cross, and it covers changes in the world today.
Last edited:
P
PJH_74
Guest
Simply put, there are a good number of people exonerated based on recantations or DNA evidence, but even one is too much. There is no moral way to justify a system that kills people for punishment when it is not perfect, will never be, and we decidedly chose to ignore this fact.
Last edited:
U
Usagi
Guest
Self-defense and capital punishment are two entirely different things.
In a case of legitimate self-defense, one uses force to deter an assailant. The assailant’s death may occur, but is not the goal — if he stops doing whatever he was doing while still alive, the self-defense has been successful (and it is both illegal and immoral to chase him down or finish him off).
In a case of capital punishment, someone who may have done great evil in the past is killed while presently helpless and under the power of the state, in an act whose entire goal is to take the person’s life.
I know proponents of capital punishment sometimes speak of “societal self-defense” as a reason for executing offenders, but that’s not really a thing, or at least not a thing that resembles other forms of legitimate self-defense.
In a case of legitimate self-defense, one uses force to deter an assailant. The assailant’s death may occur, but is not the goal — if he stops doing whatever he was doing while still alive, the self-defense has been successful (and it is both illegal and immoral to chase him down or finish him off).
In a case of capital punishment, someone who may have done great evil in the past is killed while presently helpless and under the power of the state, in an act whose entire goal is to take the person’s life.
I know proponents of capital punishment sometimes speak of “societal self-defense” as a reason for executing offenders, but that’s not really a thing, or at least not a thing that resembles other forms of legitimate self-defense.
C
cardinalsrule
Guest
No. There is room for legitimate disagreement. As Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI said that a member of the Church can legitimately find that the death penalty is in a few cases admissible.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It’s important to note that the Catholic Population in the developed western countries of Europe and North America, only make up 1/3 of the Catholic Church.
This means that 2/3rds are in 2nd and 3rd world countries of which, have no due process and their prisons are inhumane.
I don’t agree with the Pope’s call for a 100% ban, as the OP pointed out, there are convicts serving life sentences who have nothing to lose when they attack a guard, or health professional giving them a flu shot. If you commit an assault while serving a life sentence, the only other option to protect the innocent, is capital punishment.
Jim
This means that 2/3rds are in 2nd and 3rd world countries of which, have no due process and their prisons are inhumane.
I don’t agree with the Pope’s call for a 100% ban, as the OP pointed out, there are convicts serving life sentences who have nothing to lose when they attack a guard, or health professional giving them a flu shot. If you commit an assault while serving a life sentence, the only other option to protect the innocent, is capital punishment.
Jim
E
Elf01
Guest
They have nothing to lose on death row either. With a life sentence they can say goodbye to any slim chance of parole they may have had. On death row - they can’t be killed twice.I don’t agree with the Pope’s call for a 100% ban, as the OP pointed out, there are convicts serving life sentences who have nothing to lose when they attack a guard, or health professional giving them a flu shot.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Huh ?
It’s what I posted, are you agreeing or disagreeing ?
Jim
It’s what I posted, are you agreeing or disagreeing ?
Jim
U
Usagi
Guest
This whole thing comes down to a strand of thinking and teaching that has always been present in the Church, all the way back to Jesus Himself, though it certainly may have been obscured by other strands during the many centuries that the Church has itself been either a state-level power or a close advisor to same.
Sure, in strict justice, certain acts rightly forfeit a person’s continued expectation of life, and it is not outright evil for the state to execute a person in such cases. God Himself has both commanded and performed the death penalty in the past.
But when Jesus explained the higher purpose of the Law — the Law He Himself, as God, gave us — He strongly downplayed all the aspects that called for hating and punishing even our enemies and oppressors. Instead He told us that loving our enemies and showing mercy, recognizing our common status as human beings and creations of God, was the ideal to strive for.
And then He Himself was killed in an unjust execution, the event at the heart of Christianity, which our religion has always interpreted (albeit via various theories of exactly how the atonement works) as not merely a tragic human death but God’s initiative to lift the ultimate death penalty from all of us, offering us undeserved mercy instead of deserved justice.
So the fact that, over time, the successors of Peter and other Church leaders would look for ways to implement mercy instead of strict justice on as wide a level as possible is hardly alien to Catholicism. Yes, the death penalty can be just. In some times and places it was even necessary. But it’s never the ideal, and recent Popes have increasingly called upon the world to implement the ideal where possible. I can understand the concern for what this means for the unchanging nature of revealed Truth (though again I think we can go back to the Lord Himself to see that this idea has always been there in the Tradition), but no Catholic or Christian should actually be arguing in favor of killing more people instead of fewer.
Remember also that the United States is one of very few developed nations, and the only strongly Christian-influenced one, to still use the death penalty. For many countries this change in wording makes no practical difference at all, because they have already stopped killing people as part of their justice system.
Sure, in strict justice, certain acts rightly forfeit a person’s continued expectation of life, and it is not outright evil for the state to execute a person in such cases. God Himself has both commanded and performed the death penalty in the past.
But when Jesus explained the higher purpose of the Law — the Law He Himself, as God, gave us — He strongly downplayed all the aspects that called for hating and punishing even our enemies and oppressors. Instead He told us that loving our enemies and showing mercy, recognizing our common status as human beings and creations of God, was the ideal to strive for.
And then He Himself was killed in an unjust execution, the event at the heart of Christianity, which our religion has always interpreted (albeit via various theories of exactly how the atonement works) as not merely a tragic human death but God’s initiative to lift the ultimate death penalty from all of us, offering us undeserved mercy instead of deserved justice.
So the fact that, over time, the successors of Peter and other Church leaders would look for ways to implement mercy instead of strict justice on as wide a level as possible is hardly alien to Catholicism. Yes, the death penalty can be just. In some times and places it was even necessary. But it’s never the ideal, and recent Popes have increasingly called upon the world to implement the ideal where possible. I can understand the concern for what this means for the unchanging nature of revealed Truth (though again I think we can go back to the Lord Himself to see that this idea has always been there in the Tradition), but no Catholic or Christian should actually be arguing in favor of killing more people instead of fewer.
Remember also that the United States is one of very few developed nations, and the only strongly Christian-influenced one, to still use the death penalty. For many countries this change in wording makes no practical difference at all, because they have already stopped killing people as part of their justice system.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
Unless I misinterpreted you you were saying someone serving life has nothing to lose. I’m saying it’s equally, if not more true for someone on death row. Given how long it takes between conviction and execution I don’t think they have nothing to lose is a strong argument.Huh ?
It’s what I posted, are you agreeing or disagreeing ?
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Capital punishment should be rarely used.
However, when used on a violent convict who is determined to kill, capital punishment isn’t to administer justice, but to protect society.
Prison guards, healthcare workers in prisons and other convicts are also part of society.
Gang leaders doing time in prison, order the violence against other inmates, guards and even people on the outside of prison. Executing them when needed, is to protect society.
Justice or vengeance are not reasons for the use of capital punishment,
Jim
However, when used on a violent convict who is determined to kill, capital punishment isn’t to administer justice, but to protect society.
Prison guards, healthcare workers in prisons and other convicts are also part of society.
Gang leaders doing time in prison, order the violence against other inmates, guards and even people on the outside of prison. Executing them when needed, is to protect society.
Justice or vengeance are not reasons for the use of capital punishment,
Jim
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I would disagree with that. I would also throw just war doctrine in with those two things as well. They can all overlap and at times be difficult to tell apart.Self-defense and capital punishment are two entirely different things.
Would your example be considered capital punishment or self defense? Is the fact that the defense is premeditated make it capital punishment? Instead of killing the inmate who attacks his caregivers, would a viable alternative be a lobotomy or similar procedure?If you commit an assault while serving a life sentence, the only other option to protect the innocent, is capital punishment.
According to Catholic theology, would the best way to deal with a violent inmate be to just not go near them. To let them rot and die if they attack their caregivers? To inject them with drugs via a swat style takedown? When does the risk to, and dignity of, the caregivers outweigh the dignity of a violent inmate?
Ultimately, the “death penalty” is a term that only seems to be defined as a judgement leading to a sentence of death in a legitimate court based on a crime committed outside of a prison system. That seems to be the aim of the CCC.
Last edited:
U
Usagi
Guest
Is that how we actually use capital punishment, though?
How many death row inmates were not under sentence of death originally, but incurred that sentence for crimes committed in prison?
I suspect there aren’t very many, but if I’m wrong, that would be useful information.
If we just restricted execution to that case (you have continued to kill people in, or from, prison), I think that would still represent a considerable reduction in executions. I’d support it.
How many death row inmates were not under sentence of death originally, but incurred that sentence for crimes committed in prison?
I suspect there aren’t very many, but if I’m wrong, that would be useful information.
If we just restricted execution to that case (you have continued to kill people in, or from, prison), I think that would still represent a considerable reduction in executions. I’d support it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.